English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88291/117802 (75%)
Visitors : 23396751      Online Users : 129
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119580


    Title: 雇主就經營決策之協商義務:以美國經驗之探索為中心
    The Employers' Duty to Bargain over Managerial Decision : A Focus on Exploring The Experiences in The United States
    Authors: 鍾禹康
    Zhong, Yu-Kang
    Contributors: 林佳和
    Lin, Chia-Ho
    鍾禹康
    Zhong, Yu-Kang
    Keywords: 義務協商事項
    任意協商事項
    重大經營決策
    協商義務
    工作安全
    Mandatory subjects
    Permissive subjects
    Major managerial decisions
    Duty to bargain
    Job security
    Date: 2018
    Issue Date: 2018-08-27 14:48:41 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 關於雇主是否就其重大經營決策,於決策做成前給予工會有意義之協商機會,不可單方面做成並施行其決策,此一美國高度爭議之議題,在我國法院實務僅有甚少之線索,我國學說之討論亦不算多。
    此等議題之討論將涉及兩個關鍵問題。第一是否採行義務協商事項與任意協商事項之劃分。美國實務皆立基於Borg-Warner案之協商事項區分,幾無回頭路。本文肯定雇主於某些經營決策有不受干擾之需求,應由其單斷獨行,避免雇主在各領域之經營決策皆負協商義務,若不協商則受到不當勞動行為以及正當爭議行為之拘束,負擔過廣也過重,故本文主張應以我國團體協約法第六條之合理適當之內容遂行協商事項之區分。
      第二則是雇主經營決策應作如何劃分。本文參照Fibreboard案大法官Stewart之協同意見以及First National Maintenance案多數意見將雇主經營決策析分為三個領域,其一為與受僱者勞動關係之影響密切關聯,且為降低勞工成本之決策,本文認為此種決策雇主負有協商義務,蓋此種集體勞動條件得由團體協商處理;其二對受僱者工作安全直接影響,卻係基於經濟因素之決策,本文依循我國大量解僱勞工保護法強制協商之規定以及團體協約法穩定勞動關係之立法目的,主張當解僱數量達到大量勞工解僱保護法第二條之標準時,雇主應就其經營決策負協商義務,未達該條標準者,則推定雇主肩負協商義務,於特殊情形得由雇主推翻推定,以兼顧其經營營業之自由;其三則對僱用關係之影響甚為間接之決策,本文以為雇主就此種決策主不負協商義務。
      本文如此解釋之重點在於考量到勞工對於公司投入相當心力而有所累積,並且工作安全攸關其個人乃至其家庭之生計,故勞工應得透過其工會代表適度地參與涉及工作安全之經營決策,透過團體協商作為勞工工作安全保護之先位防線。企業購併商定留用之制度導致勞工缺少解僱事由之保護,更是突顯雇主就其經營決策肩負協商義務之重要。
      至於對於受僱者勞動條件有顯著負面影響之經營決策,雇主是否負有協商義務,本文抱持保留之態度,蓋衡量標準模糊,且對於雇主之經營營業自由之影響評估甚為困難。
      本文亦肯認雇主有一定單方面施行其經營決策之空間,倘此類經營決策,勞工亦有相當興趣參與,除雇主有意願就此議題與工會協商外,亦得透過其他強調勞資合作之勞工參與制度參與雇主經營決策。
      It is a hotly-contested issue in the United States whether an employer should give a meaningful opportunity to the union without implementing the management decision unilaterally before the decision is made.There were few legal practices from our courts and not much legal opinions from scholars in our country.

      There are two key questions involved in the discussion of this issue. The first one is whether to draw a line between mandatory/permissive subjects of bargaining.The legal pratices in the United States are all based on the case Borg-Warner to tell permissive subjects from mandatory subjects,there is almost no going back.The thesis author holds a positive attitude toward employers’need for unencumbered decision-making to avoid that employers have duty to bargain in each managerial decision and that heavy burden levied on the employers because of legal binding of unfair labor practice and power of legitimate economic weapon ,so that the employers would act unilaterally in certain areas.The author argues that we should draw line between mandatory bargaining subjects and permissive bargaining subjects in light of appropriate content regulated in Collective Agreement Act section 6 in our country.

      The second one is the way to distinguish between the managerial decisions. This thesis shows the way to break the managerial decisions down into three fields in light of the concurring opnion in Fibreboard by Justice Stewart and Major opinion of First National Maintenance: one is closely related to the job securities of workers,and based on the reduction of labor cost,the author argues that employers have duty to bargain over this kind of decisions due to the reason that collective conditions of employment could be dealed with through collective bargaining;another one has direct impact on job securities of the employees, but based on economic factors,the author argues that we should follow the purpose of legislation of Collective Agreement Act :to make relations of employment stable, and the regulation of Massive Dismissal of Labor Protection Act:forced bargaining,when the standard of quantity regulated in section 2 of Massive Dismissal of Labor Protection Act is met,the employers have duty to bargain, but when the standard is not met,the employers could rebut the presumption in light of unique circumstances to ensure its freedom to manage its business;the other one has quite indirect impact on relations of employment, so that employers have no duty to bargain over the decisions.

      The reason why author chooses this approach is mainly because that the workers have committed too much to the enterprise and that job securities are closely related to the workers and even the living of their families.So,workers should participate the managerial decisions with relevance to their job securities appropriately through collective bargaining as first protection for their job.The regulation of negotiation for retaining due to Corporate mergers and acquisitions leads to void of protection of just dismissal cause,which makes the duty to bargain over managerial decision prominent.

      The question as to whether employers have duty to bargain over managerial decisions which have significant adverse impact on conditions of employment of workers,author expresses reservations due to the lack of clear standard and the way to avoid unduly abridgement of empolyer’s freedom to manage its business.

    Author recognizes positively that there is a space for empoylers to act unilaterally as well,If wokers have intererests in that kind of decisions,they might seek other way for their participation,like worker participation system which put an emphasis on collaboration between employer and empolyee.
    Reference: (一)我國

    1專書
    1. William Gould著,焦興鎧 譯,美國勞工法入門,三版,1996年。
    2. 吳育仁,集體協商與勞資關係情境:國家統治與個案管理,初版,2010年10月。
    3. 吳育仁,勞資關係:權力、資本與階級,初版,2013年3月
    4. 黃程貫,勞動法,1996年6月。
    5. 黃越欽,勞動法新論,第四版,2012年9月。
    6. 賀祥宏(廖元豪),中華民國憲法,11版,2010年8月。
    7. 楊通軒,集體勞工法-理論與實務,初版, 2007年11月。

    2學位論文
    1. 洪明賢,論勞動法上之團體協商義務-我國法與日本法之比較研究,國立臺灣大學法律學系98年碩士論文。
    2. 張義德,拒絕團體協商之不當勞動行為-日本與台灣之學理分析與實踐經驗之比較,國立政治大學法律學系105年博士論文。
    3. 黃麗竹,美國勞動法上義務團體協商事項範圍劃定之研究-兼論對我國法之啟示,國立台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所104年碩士論文。

    3專書論文
    1. 林佳和,團結權之意義-大法官釋字第373號解釋,載:集體勞動法精選判決評釋,頁1-10,2017年9月。
    2. 黃程貫,團體協商之協商事項-台北高等行政法院104年度訴字第975號判決,載:集體勞動法精選判決評釋,頁175-187,2017年9月。


    4期刊論文
    1. 王兆鵬,刑事舉證責任理論-由英美法理論出發,國立臺灣大學法學論叢,第 28 卷第 4 期,頁167-191,1999年7月。
    2. 邱羽凡,企業併購決策與團體協約協商事項界限之研究,月旦民商法雜誌,58期,頁95-111,2017年12月。
    3. 林佳和,營業移轉與勞動關係命運-勞動合同法第三三、三四條理論與實踐之考察,月旦民商法雜誌,33期,頁77-105,2011年9 月
    4. 林良榮,我國勞動三權之發展現況與問題分析--歷史、結構與法律的分析途徑,監察院第四屆人權保障工作研討會論文集,53卷,頁53-100,2011年。
    5. 林振煌,美國雇主不當勞動行為概述以及我國實務見解之比較,全國律師,19卷4期,頁49-64,2015年4月。
    6. 吳育仁,台灣集體協商法律政策之分析,台灣勞動評論,2卷2期,頁351-372,2010年。
    7. 吳育仁,美國勞資集體協商政策中經營管理權和工作權之界線:從協商議題之分類與法律效果觀察,臺大法學論叢,32:1期,頁81-117,2003年1月。
    8. 侯岳宏,教師工會團體協商之協商事項及團體協商合一後拒不簽署之問題-北高行104訴975解析,月旦裁判時報,59期,頁38-45,2017年5月。
    9. 侯岳宏,台灣團體協商制度之變動及發展-以實務發展為中心,臺北大學法學論叢,97期,頁133-177,2016年3月。
    10. 焦興鎧,美國規範集體勞資關係法制之困境及相關改革倡議之研究-以受僱者自由選擇法草案為探討中心,月旦法學雜誌,214期,頁132-161,2013年3月。
    11. 鄭津津,論雇主因虧損解僱勞工所生爭議是否為權利事項爭議-評九七台上字一八八零號判決,台灣法學雜誌,126期,頁234-238,2009年4月。
    12. 劉志鵬,團體協商義務與誠實協商義務,全國律師,第15卷6期,頁3-20,2011年6月。
    13. 劉士豪,團體協約法修正後之分析,法學新論,9期,頁1-29,2009年4月。
    14. 劉陽明、謝政達,簽訂團體協約之義務-團體協約法草案之新方向,月旦法學雜誌,第15期,頁81-85,1996年8月。
    15. 蕭淑芬,論基本權核心概念之規範-一個比較法學之觀察,東海法學研究,19期,頁1-28,2003年12月。

    5研究報告
    1. 王能君,日本團體協商制度之研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,2003年10月。
    2. 王能君,日本勞動法上團體協商事項之研究,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,2004年11月。
    3. 林佳和、黃程貫、王能君,勞資協議法制化對我國勞資關係之影響評估研究,財團法人國家實驗研究院科技政策研究與資訊中心103年度研究報告,2014年。
    4. 林佳和、黃世鑫,勞工董事制度之理論與實務,行政院勞工委員會委託研究報告,2004年10月。
    5. 侯岳宏,拒絕團體協商之不當勞動行為要件研究研究成果報告(精簡版),行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,2011年10月。
    6. 陳建文,不當勞動行為實體法與程序法整合型計畫無正當理由拒絕協商子計畫期末報告,行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫,2012年10月。

    6研討會與論壇資料
    1. 王能君,團體協商義務之範圍劃定-合理適當事項與團體協商事項,發表於2015台灣勞動學術研討會-變遷中之勞動世界:理論與實際,2015年12月。
    2. 邱羽凡,勞資爭議處理期間不力行為之禁止-最高法院九七年度台上字一八八零號判決,集體勞動法理論與實務發展論壇(於台北大學法律系),上課講義PPT,2016年11月。
    3. 陳建文,拒絕團體協商之不當性與正當性思考-無正當理由拒絕團體協商機制之裁決操作探討,發表於:我國不當勞動行為裁決制度實施週年研討會,2012年5月。
    4. 陳建文,違反誠實協商義務之不當勞動行為類型-外國法制介紹(以日本法為中心)與我國團體協約法修正草案相關規定之探討,發表於:台灣勞動法學會主辦,第四屆台灣勞動法學會年度學術研討會,2003年1月。

    7網路資料
    1. 林佳和,第一商業銀行團體協約評析,頁1-2,勞動部網站:https://www.mol.gov.tw/media/3810609/第一商業銀行團體協約評析.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2018年7月3日)。
    2. 林佳和,協商僵局之處理,勞動部網站https://www.mol.gov.tw/media/3810599/%E5%9C%98%E9%AB%94%E5%8D%94%E5%95%86-%E5%8D%94%E5%95%86%E5%83%B5%E5%B1%80%E4%B9%8B%E8%99%95%E7%90%86-%E6%9E%97%E4%BD%B3%E5%92%8C.pdf,最後瀏覽日:2018年6月22日)。
    3. 黃國昌,設置勞工董事-莫忘勞工心聲,時代力量網站:https://www.newpowerparty.tw/news/%E9%BB%83%E5%9C%8B%E6%98%8C%E3%80%8C%E8%A8%AD%E7%BD%AE%E5%8B%9E%E5%B7%A5%E8%91%A3%E4%BA%8B-%E8%8E%AB%E5%BF%98%E5%8B%9E%E5%B7%A5%E5%BF%83%E8%81%B2%E3%80%8D(最後瀏覽日2018年7月1日)。
    4. 劉士豪,德國所謂勞工參與,頁1-2,勞動部網站:https://www.mol.gov.tw/media/3810661/%E5%BE%B7%E5%9C%8B%E6%89%80%E8%AC%82%E5%8B%9E%E5%B7%A5%E5%8F%83%E8%88%87-%E5%8A%89%E5%A3%AB%E8%B1%AA%E6%95%99%E6%8E%88.pdf (最後瀏覽日2018年6月28日)。
    5. 劉士豪,勞動基本權入憲之分析,21世紀憲改聯盟,網站:www.ouk.edu.tw/Sysadm/FileDownLoad/ActivitiesFile/File/20120301034922001.pdf(最後瀏覽日2018年7月)。
    6. 各行業離職失業比率-按行業標準分類第八、九次修訂(96年至100年,101年以後),勞動統計查詢網,網址:https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/statis/jspProxy.aspx?sys=220&ym=9600&ymt=10600&kind=21&type=1&funid=q020751&cycle=4&outmode=0&&compmode=0&outkind=11&fldspc=0,22,&rdm=k4olytWx(最後瀏覽日2018年7月3日)。
    7. 大量解僱概況統計,參見勞動統計查詢網,網址:https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/statis/jspProxy.aspx?sys=210&kind=21&type=1&funid=q05041&rdm=nkiirehl(最後瀏覽日2018年7月3日)。

    (二)外國

    1專書
    1. Cox,Archibald,Derek Bok,Robert Gorman ,and Matthew Finkin.Labor Law Cases and Materials.15thed.New York:Thompson Reuters / Foundation press,2011.
    2. Blum,Albert A.A History of the American Labor Movement. Washington,D.C.:American Historical Association,1972.
    3. Estreicher,Samuel,and Daniel Collins,eds.Labor Law and Business Change:Theoretical and Transactional Perspectives. Connecticut: Greenwood Press,1988.
    4. Gorman,Robert,and Matthew Finkin.Basic Text of Labor Law: Unionization and Collective Bargaining.2nded.St.Paul:West Publishing,2004.
    5. Gould Ⅳ,William B.A Primer On American Labor Law.4thed. Cambridge: MIT Press,2004.
    6. Higgins,John,Jr.eds. The developing labor law : the board, the courts, and the National Labor Relations Act.6thed.Arlington: Bloomberg BNA,2012.
    7. Miscimarra,Philip.NLRB and Managerial Discretion:Plant Closings,Relacations,subcontracting and Automation.1sted. Philadelphia,:University of Pennsylvannia Center for Human Resources of The Wharton School,1983.
    8. Rabin,Robert,Eileen Silverstein,and George Schatzki.Labor and Employment Law Problems,cases and materials in the law of work.St. Paul,MN:West Publishing,1988.
    9. Wellington,Harry.Labor and the Legal Process .New Haven,:Yale University Press,1968.


    2期刊論文

    1. St.Antoine,Theodore , "Legal Barriers to Worker Participation in Management Decision Making," 58 Tulane Law Review 1301-1321 (1984).
    2. Atkinson, James ,"Automating the workplace:Mandatory Bargaining under Otis II," 1989 University of Illinois Law Review 435-470 (1989).
    3. Cox, Archibald and John Dunlop , " Regulation of Collective Bargaining by the National Labor Relations Board," 63 Harvard Law Review 389-432 (1950).
    4. Cox, Archibald ,"Labor Decisions of the Supreme Court at the October Term, 1957," 44 Virginia Law Review 1057-1092 (1958).
    5. Comment, "Automation and collective bargaining, " 84 Harvard Law Review 1822-1855 (1971).
    6. Friedman,James , "Keeping Big Issues off the Table:the Suprmeme Court on Entrepreneurial Discretion and the Duty to Bargain," 37 Maine Law Review 223-266 (1985).
    7. Fleming, Roland ,"The Obligation to Bargain in Good Faith," 47 Virginia Law Review 988-1013 (1961).
    8. Harper, Michael , " Leveling the Road from Borf-Warner to First National Maintenance:the Scope of Mandatory Bargaining, " 68 Virginia Law Review 1447-1503 (1982).
    9. Kohler,Thomas , "Forum: Distinctions without Differences: Effects Bargaining in Light of First National Maintenance," 5 Industrial Relations Law Journal 402-425 (1983).
    10. Knight,Joseph , "Decision-Bargaining and the NLRA- A Plea for the resurrection of First National Maintenance Corp., " 68 Texas Law Review 625-648 (1990).
    11. Morris, Charles , "The Role of the NLRB and the Court in the Collective Bargaining Process: A Fresh Look at Conventional Wisdom and Unconventional Remedies, "30 Vanderbilt Law Review 661-687 (1977).
    12. Rabin, Robert , " Fibreboard and the Termination of Bargaining Unit Work:the Search for Standards in defining the Scope or the Duty to Bargain, " 71 Columbia Law Review 803-836 (1971).
    13. Rasnic, Carol ,"Germany’s Statutory Works Councils and Emplyee Codetermination:A Model for the United States?, "14 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal 275-300 (1992).
    14. Rasband, James , "Major Operational Decisions and Free Collecting Bargaining:Eliminating the Mandatory/Permissive Distinction, " 102 Harvard Law Review 1971-1992 (1989).
    15. Rippey, Linda , "Alternatives to the United States System of Labor Relations:A Comparative Analysis of the Labor Relations Systems in the Federal Republic of Germany,Japan,and Sweden, " 41 Vanderbilt Law Review 627-658 (1988).
    16. Summers, Clyde , " Worker Participation in Sweden and the United States: Some Comparisons from an American Perspective, "133 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 175-225 (1984).
    17. Summers, Clyde , "Codetermination in the United States:A Projection of Problems and Potentials, " 4 Journal of Comparative Corporate Law and Securities Regulation 155-191 (1982).
    18. Summers, Clyde , "Employee Voice and Employer Choice: A Structured Exception to Section 8(a)(2)," 69 Chicago-Kent Law Review 129-148 (1993).
    19. Strauss, George and Tove Hammer, "Worker's Participation in the United States, " IRLE Working Paper No. 2-87 (1987).
    20. Zakson, Laurence , "Worker Participation: Industrial Democracy and Managerial Prerogative in the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden and the United States, " 8 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 93-116 (1984).


    3專書論文
    1. Daniels, Wilbur,and Seth Kupferberg.1988.Sale of assets,mergers,and Acquisitions: A union view.Pp. 185-206 in Labor Law and Business Change: Theoretical and Transactional Perspectives ,edited by Samuel Estreicher and Daniel G. Collins.Conneticut,CT:Green Press.
    2. International Labor Organization.1988.Worker’s Participation in Decisions within Enterprises.Pp.234-237 in Labor and Employment Law-Problems,cases and materials in the law of work,edited by Robert J.Rabin,Eileen Silverstein and George Schatzki. St.Paul,MN:West Publishing.

    4其他資料
    1. Congressional Record,volume 79 (1935).
    2. Former General Counsel Irving, Daily Labor Report, No.17 D-1 D-2 D-3 (1982).
    3. Hearings, Committee on Labor, United States Senate, 74th Congress, 1st Session on House of Representatives 6288, Washington. (1935)
    4. Report of House of Representatives, No. 245 ,80th Congress, 1st Session (1947).
    5. NLRB Office of General Counsel, Memorandum 81-57 (Nov. 30 1981).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    103652014
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103652014
    Data Type: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LAWID.006.2018.F10
    Appears in Collections:[法律與科技整合研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    201401.pdf1998KbAdobe PDF129View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback